Nine in ten NHS staff say Sir David Nicholson should resign for presiding over one of our worst-ever hospital scandals.

But as the NHS chief executive lost the confidence of doctors, nurses and other senior managers, the Prime Minister came to his defence in an extraordinary show of support.

Mr Cameron insisted Sir David was doing a ‘very good job’ and should not be made a ‘scapegoat’ after a report this month implicated him in the Mid Staffordshire disaster, in which 1,200 patients died needlessly.

Sir David, who has faced widespread calls to resign, insists he is ‘not ashamed’ to still be in his job and has blamed the failings on the ‘whole system’.

But the findings from two online polls – which together received 2,000 responses – show he has lost the trust of health service professionals.

When asked whether it was time for him to step down, 91 per cent voted yes.

Speaking to reporters during his trip to India, the Prime Minister leapt to Sir David’s defence, saying: ‘I’ve been impressed with the grip and grasp he has over the NHS and his knowledge and understanding and love for it and what he helps to deliver in terms of results.

‘I obviously read that report very carefully. I looked at what people were responsible for.

‘It seemed to me that he had properly apologised and acknowledged the mistakes that the regional health authority had made when he ran it for that short period of time as these events unfolded.

‘We should not be seeking scapegoats and I think to highlight David Nicholson in that way would be seeking a scapegoat.’

A poll of 1,723 doctors, nurses, managers and other senior staff by NHSmanagers.net, a website for health workers, found 92 per cent wanted him to resign.

‘As stories of quality horrors, bullying
and service dislocation emerge, it would seem time to recognise Sir
David’s huge contribution to the NHS in the past but make it clear he is
not the man to take the NHS into the future. Politicians insist on the
NHS being run in a business-like way.

In defence: Prime Minister David Cameron said the NHS chief executive should not be made into a scapegoat over the Mid Staffordshire scandal, and has done a 'very good job'

He continued: ‘If this were a business I think the shareholders would be calling for a new boss and a clean sweep of the board.

‘I don’t see why taxpayers should expect anything less.’

Sir David’s position has come under
increasing pressure over the last fortnight following a damning report
into the Mid Staffordshire disaster.

‘I’ve been impressed with the grip and
grasp he has over the NHS and his knowledge and understanding and love
for it and what he helps to deliver in terms of results'

- Cameron on shamed Sir David

Up to 1,200 patients are feared to have died at the trust unnecessarily between 2005 and 2009 while countless others suffered horrific neglect.

Sir David has been accused of ignoring
the warning signs and failing to intervene while head of the regional
health board and later, the Department of Health.

Although he has apologised to bereaved families, he has refused to quit his £211,000-a-year post.

Last week he was implicated in
another scandal when it emerged he had ignored warnings about a hospital
trust now at the centre of a probe into high death rates.

Gary Walker and David Bowles, two
senior managers at United Lincolnshire hospitals, said they raised
concerns three years ago but were hounded from their jobs.

As many as 670 patients are now thought to have died unnecessarily at the trust and it faces an investigation over poor care.

Ignored: Whistle blowers Gary Walker (left) and David Bowles (right), two senior managers at United Lincolnshire hospitals, say they wrote to Sir David in 2009 but were hounded from their jobs

Sir David appears to be losing
political support and at least two Tory MPs from the health select
committee, Chris Skidmore and Dr Sarah Wollaston, believe he should go.
On Tuesday, health minister Dr Daniel Poulter also appeared to invite
him to ‘consider’ his position.

When questioned on BBC’s Newsnight, Dr Poulter said: ‘David Nicholson can obviously consider his own position.

‘But
at the moment we are accepting the fact that he, like many people, has
made an apology for what he has done and we need now to move on and make
sure that we never let another Mid Staffs happen again.’

Aside
from his role in the scandal, many health professionals privately
believe that unless Sir David leaves, the culture of secrecy within the
NHS will not change.

A spokesman for Sir David declined to comment on the results of the polls.

Campaigner Julie Bailey, who led the
charge in calling for Sir David's resignation, said she was
‘disappointed’ in the Prime Minister's comments.

Miss Bailey, who set up the Cure The
NHS group after her mother Bella died at Stafford Hospital in 2007,
said: ‘We are really disappointed. We thought that this leader would
help us cure the NHS.

Campaigners called for Sir David to be sacked after the publication of the public inquiry report into Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust.

‘It is not scapegoating anyone - this man has failed. He has failed not only in his role at the strategic health authority but he has also gone on to be knighted and promoted to chief executive of the NHS while we have 14 hospitals under investigation and a workforce that is demoralised. It is a sad day for Cure The NHS.’

She also called into question the impartiality of the chair of the Health Select Committee, Stephen Dorrell. Daily Telegraph columnist Sue Cameron reported that Mr Dorrell said the Tories should support Sir David ‘because they owe him’.

‘He played a blinder for the Government when it was trying to put through its health reform Bill,’ Mr Dorrell told the newspaper. ‘Now people should pay their debt for the support he gave.’

Miss Bailey said Mr Dorrell should not have made the comments prior to Sir David's evidence session before the committee on March 5.

‘I would also like to call into question Stephen Dorrell's position in defending Sir David Nicholson when he is chair of the Select Committee,’ she said. ‘It calls into question his impartiality when he is speaking to defend him before he has even heard evidence from him.’